Seyfarth Synopsis: August 31 was the California Legislature’s last day to send bills to Governor Brown for his approval or veto by his September 30 deadline. Chief among them are bills addressing sexual harassment.

2018, the year of #MeToo, saw California Senators and Assembly Members introduce numerous bills on sexual harassment-prevention, often followed by their colleagues’ response of “me too!” By the August 31 bill-passing deadline, the Legislature approved no fewer than 12 sexual harassment-related bills, as well as bills relating to lactation accommodations, gender quotas for corporation boards of directors, and various other labor and employment-related bills.

Below is a summary of passed bills now before Governor Brown for his approval or veto. Once the Governor acts (by his own September 30 deadline), we’ll provide an update on all labor and employment-related bills enacted into law this Session, as well as those bills that failed to pass and any that met a gubernatorial veto.

Sexual Harassment

Limiting Settlement Agreements. For settlement agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2019, SB 820 would prohibit and make void any provision that prevents the disclosure of information related to civil or administrative complaints of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and workplace harassment or discrimination based on sex. SB 820 expressly authorizes provisions that (i) preclude the disclosure of the amount paid in settlement and (ii) protect the claimant’s identity and any fact that could reveal the identity, so long as the claimant has requested anonymity and the opposing party is not a government agency or public official. SB 820 suggests that a violation of its provisions would give rise to a cause of action for civil damages.

Banning Waivers of Rights to Testify. As to any contract or settlement agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2019, SB 3109 would make void and unenforceable any provision that waives a party’s right to testify in a legal proceeding (if required or requested by court order, subpoena or administrative or legislative request) regarding criminal conduct or sexual harassment on the part of the other contracting party, or the other party’s agents or employees.

Banning Contractual Limits on Disclosure and Effectively Banning Arbitration Agreements. For agreements entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2019, AB 3080 would forbid any business to require, as a condition of employment , of conferring an employment benefit, or of entering a contract:

that a job applicant, employee, or independent contractor not disclose instances of sexual harassment suffered, witnessed, or discovered in the work place or in performance of the contract, opposing unlawful practices, or participating in harassment and discrimination related investigations or proceedings, or

that a job applicant or employee waive any right, forum, or procedure (e.g,, arbitration) for a violation of the FEHA or Labor Code, including any requirement that an individual “opt out” or take affirmative action to preserve such rights.

AB 3080 would make actionable any threatened or actual retaliation against an individual who refuses to consent to the forbidden requirements. AB 3080 would authorize injunctive relief and attorney’s fees to any plaintiff who proves a violation. Possibly because much of AB 3080 could be held preempted by the FAA, AB 3080 contains a severability clause by which the rest of the law will remain in effect if a court finds certain sections invalid.

Extending Liability for Employers and for Businesses Using Labor Contractors. AB 3081 would amend the FEHA and Labor Code to: (1) add status as a sexual harassment victim to existing prohibitions on discrimination against employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking; (2) create a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation if the employer—within 30 days of notice of the victim’s status—discharges or threatens to discharge, demotes, suspends, or otherwise discriminates against a victim employee; (3) make a business jointly liable for harassment of workers supplied by the business’s labor contractor (existing law similarly extends liability for the contractor’s failure to pay wages and obtain valid workers’ compensation coverage); (4) prohibit businesses from shifting to their labor contractors duties or liabilities under the Labor Code workers’ compensation insurance provisions.

Expanding Record Retention Duties. AB 1867 would require employers with 50 or more employees to maintain records of internal employee complaints alleging sexual harassment for at least five years after the last day of employment of either the complainant or the alleged harasser named in the complaint, whichever is later. If an employer fails to comply, then AB 1867 would allow the DFEH to seek an order requiring the employer to do so.

Extending the Deadline for Harassment Complaints. AB 1870 would extend a complainant’s time to file an administrative charge with the DFEH from one year to three years after the alleged incident. This expansion of the limitations period would apply to all types of FEHA-prohibited conduct, including sexual harassment.

Adopt or reject specified judicial decisions regarding sexual harassment (in each case expanding employer liability). Specifically, SB 1300 would (1) prohibit reliance on Brooks v. City of San Mateo to determine what conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable harassment, (2) disapprove any language in Kelley v. Conco Companies that might support different standards for hostile work environment harassment depending on the type of workplace, and (3) affirm Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.’s “observation that hostile working environment cases involve issues ‘not determinable on paper.’”

Expand an employer’s potential liability under the FEHA for acts of nonemployees to all harassment (removing the “sexual” limitation).

Prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to sign (in specified circumstances) (1) a release of FEHA claims or rights or (2) a document prohibiting disclosure of information about unlawful acts in the workplace.

Prohibit a prevailing defendant from being awarded attorney’s fees and costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.

Authorize (but not require) an employer to provide bystander intervention training to its employees.

Expanding Scope of Required Sexual Harassment Training.SB 1343 would require an employer of five or more employees—including seasonal and temporary employees—to provide certain sexual harassment training by January 1, 2020. Within six months of their assuming their position (and once every two years thereafter), all supervisors are to receive at least two hours of training, and all nonsupervisory employees are to receive at least one hour. SB 1343 would also require the DFEH to make available a one-hour and a two-hour online training course employers may use and to make the training videos, existing informational posters, fact sheets, and online training courses available in multiple languages.

Effective January 1, 2020, all employers applying for new or renewed registration must demonstrate completion of sexual harassment violence prevention requirements and provide an attestation to the Labor Commissioner.

The Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) must convene an advisory committee to develop requirements for qualified organizations and peer-trainers for employers to use in providing training, and the DIR must maintain a list of qualified organizations and qualified peer-trainers.

Employers, upon request, must provide an employee a copy of all training materials.

AB 2079 would also prohibit the Labor Commissioner from approving a janitorial service employer’s request for registration or for renewal if the employer has not fully satisfied a final judgment to a current or former employee for a violation of the FEHA.

Requiring Sexual Harassment Education for In-Home Support Services.AB 3082 would require the Department of Social Services to develop or identify—and provide a copy and description to the Legislature by September 30, 2019—(1) educational materials addressing sexual harassment of in-home supportive services (IHSS) providers and recipients, and (2) a method to collect data on the prevalence of sexual harassment in the IHSS program.

Requiring Sexual Harassment Education by Talent Agencies. AB 2338 would require talent agencies to provide adult artists, parents or legal guardians of minors aged 14-17, and age-eligible minors, within 90 days of retention, educational materials on sexual harassment prevention, retaliation, and reporting resources. For adult model artists only, the talent agency would be required to provide materials on nutrition and eating disorders. Talent agencies would also have to retain, for three years, records showing that those educational materials were provided.

Strengthening Prohibitions Against Harassment With Respect to Professional Relationships. SB 224 would give additional examples of professional relationships where liability for claims of sexual harassment may arise and authorize the DFEH to investigate those circumstances.

Non-Harassment Bills

Opening Doors for Women in the Boardroom. “The time has come for California to bring gender diversity to our corporate boards,” stated co-author Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson in her August 30 press release regarding SB 826. SB 826 would require a publicly held corporation based in California to have a minimum number of females—people who self-identify as women, regardless of their designated sex at birth—on its board of directors. This bill would require each such corporation, by December 31, 2019, to have at least one female director on its board and, if no board seats open up before this date on an all-male board, the corporation would need to increase its authorized number of directors and fill a new seat with a woman. The bill would impose minimum seats that must be filled by women, proportional to the total number of seats, by the end of July 2021. The bill would require the Secretary of State to publish a report by July 1, 2019 of the number of corporations headquartered in California that have at least one female director, and a report by March 1, 2020, detailing (1) the number of corporations that complied with requirements in 2019, (2) the number of corporations that moved their headquarters in or out of California, and (3) the number of publicly held corporations subject to this bill during 2019, but no longer publicly traded.

Corporations failing to comply would face penalties. For each director’s seat not held by a female during at least a portion of the calendar year—when by law it should have been—the corporation would be subject to a $100,000 fine for the first violation and a $300,000 fine for further violations. Corporations that fail to timely file board member information with the Secretary of State would also be subject to a $100,000 fine.

Expanding Lactation Accommodations. Two bills specifying the types of spaces employers must provide women for lactation are now before the Governor. AB 1976 would require employers to make reasonable efforts to provide a room or location (that is not a bathroom, deleting “toilet stall” and inserting “bathroom”) for lactation. The bill would authorize a temporary lactation location if certain conditions are met and provides a narrow undue hardship exemption.

Provide a lactation room with prescribed features and access to a sink and refrigerator (or another cooling device suitable for storing milk) in close proximity to the employee’s workspace.

Develop and distribute to employees a lactation accommodation policy.

Maintain accommodation request records for three years and allow the employee and Labor Commissioner access to the records.

SB 937 would also deem the denial of break time or space for lactation a failure to provide a rest period under Labor Code section 226.7. This bill would require the DLSE to create a model lactation accommodation request form and authorize the DLSE to create a model lactation policy and best practices.

Encouraging Mediation Confidentiality. SB 954 would require attorneys, except in class actions, to provide their mediating clients with a written disclosure containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions provided in the Evidence Code and to obtain a written acknowledgment signed by the client stating that the client has read and understands the confidentiality restrictions. This duty arises as soon as reasonably possible before the client agrees to participate in mediation or a mediation consultation, The bill is an encouragement, with little consequence, providing that an attorney’s failure to comply is not a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in mediation or pursuant to a mediation.

Criminal History. SB 1412—the only bill this year covering criminal background checks to survive the legislative gauntlet—would require employers to consider only a “particular conviction” (as defined by the bill) relevant to the job when screening applicants using a criminal background check.

Pay Statements. Stating it is declaratory of existing law, SB 1252 would amend Labor Code section 226 to provide employees the right “to receive” a copy—not just inspect or copy—their pay statements.

Immigration Documents. AB 2732 would make it a misdemeanor— subject to a $10,000 penalty—for an employer to destroy or withhold passports or other immigration documents. This bill would also require an employer to provide the “Worker’s Bill of Rights” (to be developed by the DIR) to employees either before verifying employment eligibility if hired on or after July 1, 2019 and whenever the document is made available by the DIR if the employee is hired before July 1, 2019. Employers would be required to keep signed copies of this document for at least three years. AB 2732 also would clarify the definition of janitorial services’ employer under the Labor Code, provide that additional contact and compensation information for janitorial workers be retained for three years, and require these employers (as part of their application or renewal of their registration) to attest that sexual violence and harassment prevention training has been provided.

Contractor Liability. AB 1565 would, immediately upon the Governor’s signing, repeal the express provision that relieved direct contractors for liability for anything other than unpaid wages and fringe or other benefit payments or contributions including interest owed.

Port Drayage Motor Carries. SB 1402 would require the DLSE to post a list on its site of “bad actor” port drayage motor carriers. Examples would include companies with any unsatisfied judgment or assessment or any “order, decision, or award” finding illegal conduct as to various wage/hour issues, specifically including independent contractor misclassification and derivative claims. SB 1402 would also extend joint and several liability to the customers of “bad actor” drayage motor carriers for their future wage violations of the same nature.

Stay tuned! We will provide a full update of those bills that were voted and signed into law this Session, as well as which bills failed to meet the Legislature’s or Governor’s approval, after Governor Brown has done his work on the remaining bills.

We took a break this week, to wrap up loose ends and gear up for Labor Day. So we did not draft an original blog post. But we did retrieve, from the archives, a quick history of why we celebrate this holiday to honor the American worker. Here it is, as fodder for your contemplation over the weekend: https://www.dol.gov/general/laborday/history

Also, today (August 31) is the last day for the California Legislature to pass bills. So we have been laboring on our updated Cal-Legislative Update, coming your way next week. This piece will summarize the bills that have survived the legislative gauntlet and face review by Governor Brown.

We wish each of you a wonderful and safe holiday. Don’t work too hard.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Following a season of unprecedented outcry over persistent work-related sexual harassment, known best as the “#MeToo” movement, California lawmakers this session have considered a record number of bills that address the problem. One bill, AB 1867, recently passed by the Legislature and discussed below, will (if signed by the Governor) require large employers to keep records of all employee complaints alleging sexual harassment for at least five years. Other bills working their way through the process (as if to say “me, too”) also address this vital topic, as we briefly recap below.

Potential New Recording-Keeping Law

If signed by Governor Brown, AB 1867 will add Government Code section 12950.5 to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This bill would require employers of 50 or more employees to maintain internal records of complaints alleging sexual harassment for five years after the date the complainant or any alleged harasser leaves the company—whichever date is later.

AB 1867 would define an “employee complaint” as one filed through the employer’s “internal complaint process.” Existing law already requires California employers to maintain anti-harassment policies that inform employees of the complaint process available to them. The new law would permit the state Department of Labor to seek an order compelling any employer to comply with the record-keeping requirement.

In practice, this law would likely not add too much of an administrative burden to the larger employers covered by it. It is the rare—and foolhardy—California employer that does not already utilize an internal employee complaint process that takes seriously and investigates every complaint of harassment. This law would merely mandate that records of the complaints alleging sexual harassment must be maintained for the employment-plus-five-year period.

This bill raises other questions, though, for the thoughtful employer anticipating logistical issues: Would the law also mandate preservation of any investigation files? Who would have access to the preserved complaint records? What about the privacy rights of the parties involved? Would an applicant for employment at a company have a right to demand to see any complaints made alleging sexual harassment against the company? The answer to the last question should almost certainly be “No,” so long as California’s constitutional right of privacy remains intact. But it does highlight concerns about the potential use of the documents required to be maintained, which contains, by definition, only allegations of sexual misconduct.

Related Legislation

AB 1867 is not the only potential new law in this summer of #MeToo. Also heading to the Governor’s desk is AB 3109, which would void any contractual provision that waives a party’s right to testify about criminal conduct or sexual harassment by the other contracting.

Also being presented to the Governor is AB 3080—which we recently highlighted here. This bill would outlaw mandatory arbitration agreements between businesses and employees or independent contractors, and thus ensure that harassment complaints get aired in public lawsuits instead of private arbitrations. Further, AB 3080 would prohibit any contractual rule against disclosing instances of sexual harassment.

Nine other bills addressing workplace harassment are currently wending their way through the Legislature, their fates still unknown:

On the Assembly Floor:

The potentially onerous SB 1300 would (1) amend FEHA by expanding an employer’s potential liability, (2) prohibit a release of claims under FEHA or a nondisclosure agreement (with certain exceptions) in exchange for a raise or a bonus or as a condition of employment or continued employment, and (3) prohibit a prevailing defendant from being awarded fees and costs in certain circumstances.

SB 1038 would impose personal liability under FEHA for retaliating against a person who has filed a complaint against the employee, testified against the employee, assisted in any proceeding, or opposed any prohibited practice.

SB 1343 would expand sexual harassment prevention training requirements to employers with five or more employees and would require that Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) materials be made available in multiple languages.

SB 820 would void provisions in settlement agreements that prevent the disclosure of facts relating to sexual assault, sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and failure to prevent sex-based harassment and discrimination.

SB 224 would give additional examples of professional relationships where liability for claims of sexual harassment may arise and authorize the DFEH to investigate those circumstances.

On the Senate Floor:

AB 2079 would expand requirements when applying to register as a janitorial business and expand sexual harassment prevention training.

AB 1870 would extend the period to file an administrative charge with the DFEH alleging an unlawful employment practice under the FEHA. The current deadline is one year from the time the alleged incident. AB 1870 would extend the deadline to three years.

AB 2338 would require talent agencies to provide to adult artists, within 90 days of retention, educational materials on sexual harassment prevention, retaliation, nutrition, and eating disorders. Talent agencies would also have to retain, for three years, records showing that those educational materials were provided.

AB 3082 would require the state Department of Social Services to develop or identify educational materials addressing sexual harassment of in-home supportive services (IHSS) providers, develop or identify a method to collect data on the prevalence of sexual harassment in the IHSS program, and provide a summary of those items to the Legislature by September 30, 2019.

Stay tuned for updates on which, if any, #MeToo bill will make it over the enactment finish line, adding to the body of work that makes California employment law the peculiar wonder that it is.

Seyfarth Synopsis: As of August 30, 2018, California businesses must provide the public with more information about dangerous chemicals present at the business location. Many California employers will comply with the new requirements through the Cal/OSHA-required workplace hazardous communication program. For occupational exposures that do not meet the thresholds for HazMat communications, posting new signs will meet the requirements.

California’s ubiquitous Proposition 65 warnings, which warn the public at large of the presence of known cancer-causing chemicals, are receiving a makeover. Beginning August 30, 2018, regulations enacted by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment will require businesses to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings regarding Prop 65 listed chemicals. For businesses in general, this new requirement typically will mean displaying signs advising the public of known carcinogens on site. (Technically, California does not require the use of these signs, but they provide a safe harbor for businesses because they are deemed compliant with Proposition 65; it is more risky to rely on a homegrown Prop 65 sign.)

The new signs will display the name of at least one chemical that prompted the warning; convey more directly the risk of exposure for consumer products (e.g., saying the product “can expose you to” a listed chemical, rather than that the product “contains” a chemical); and refer to a website that will provide additional, relevant information.

For employers, however, not much will change. Employers already must warn employees of hazardous exposures, as defined by Cal/OSHA standards, occurring at the workplace. Most employers satisfy that duty by implementing a hazardous communication program that complies with Cal/OSHA standards. Employers may continue to do so under the revised Prop 65 regulations. In that sense, a compliant HazCom program (which already requires information about present hazards, employee training, and the availability of safety data sheets) will continue to provide a safe harbor to employers.

Some occupational exposures to listed chemicals do not trigger HazCom threshold requirements but nonetheless are covered by Prop 65. In those cases, Cal/OSHA still permits employers to use their HazCom program to comply. Employers may choose instead to use the new Prop 65 warning signs.

Seyfarth Synopsis: California enacted its Immigrant Worker Protection Act (IWPA) to make it more difficult for federal immigration enforcement agents to access nonpublic areas of employer worksites and private employee records. The U.S. Justice Department, however, recently persuaded a federal district court to issue a preliminary injunction against IWPA provisions that bar employers from voluntarily providing immigration enforcement agents with access to nonpublic worksites and employee records unless federal authorities present a judicial warrant (to access nonpublic worksites) or an administrative or judicial subpoena (to access employee records). In a recent post on Angelo A. Paparelli’s personal blog, the immigration expert extensively analyzes this development and proposes a response that California might pursue.

Angelo argues that the California Attorney General should try to persuade the Federal Court to lift the injunction against these IWPA provisions. He points out that Congress – when passing the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) – never authorized the relevant civil and criminal immigration enforcement activities. Instead, the HSA requires the relevant agency to focus solely on adjudicating requests for immigration benefits such as work and visitor visas, asylum status, green cards, and U.S. citizenship. Angelo maintains that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should respect its lack of enforcement authority and stop sending its investigators to California worksites and stop disrupting businesses and workers in the state.

Seyfarth Synopsis. Pending California legislation would make a mandatory arbitration agreement an unlawful practice under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and a crime. How could that be consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act?

Under current law, California businesses can insist that employees and contractors enter valid agreements to resolve disputes in front of a neutral arbitrator instead of a judge and jury. These agreements also may waive employee participation in class actions.

California is a repeat offender in making unconstitutional attacks on arbitration agreements. The FAA declares that arbitration agreements are entitled to judicial enforcement to the same extent that contracts generally are. Because federal law thus protects arbitration agreements from discrimination, state laws hostile to arbitration are preempted under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Yet California officials have continued to defy this constitutional reality. On no fewer than five occasions the United States Supreme Court has found it necessary to strike down California statutes or judicial decisions that have discriminated against arbitration agreements. California lawmakers nonetheless remain hostile to these agreements and—like Don Quixote tilting at windmills—continue to sally forth against an invincible foe.

The latest quixotic effort comes in the form of Assembly Bill 3080, sponsored by Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher. AB 3080 would forbid businesses to require arbitration in any agreement with an employee or independent contractor entered into on or after January 1, 2019. The bill would prohibit even those agreements that permit an individual to opt out. And the bill has bite: it would amend the FEHA to authorize discrimination lawsuits against businesses that require arbitration agreements, and it would place its substantive provisions within an article of the Labor Code that subjects any violator to criminal prosecution.

Now, we know what you’re thinking: how could such a measure possibly pass constitutional muster, and isn’t the bill so ridiculous that it would never pass in the first place? Take the second question first: Assembly Member Gonzalez Fletcher has repeatedly authored bills that have become law over strenuous objections of the California Chamber of Commerce. Her legislative track record is impressive. And her colleagues in Sacramento are not known for rebuffing the entreaties of the plaintiffs’ bar—who have never much liked arbitration.

As to the federal constitutional issue, however, your question is powerful, as the defenses offered for AB 3080 are unsound. The first defense is that the bill would affect only mandatory agreements (though the bill, in an Orwellian twist, would consider an agreement mandatory even if it provides for an opportunity to opt out of it). This defense ignores the point that courts routinely have invoked the FAA to protect arbitration agreements imposed as a condition of employment. Contracts presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis—and accepted either formally or through continued employment—are fully enforceable so long as they are not unreasonably one-sided, and arbitration agreements can meet that test. FAA preemption thus applies regardless of whether the arbitration agreement is called “mandatory” or “voluntary.”

The second defense of AB 3080 is likewise disingenuous. This defense notes that AB 3080 does not expressly declare arbitration agreements unenforceable, and suggests that judicial enforceability really is all that the FAA is about. And, this defense continues, “What would be the harm of the new law, anyway? Couldn’t we just wait to see how a court rules on it?”

This defense disregards Supreme Court teaching, which holds that the FAA preempts any state law that “stands as an obstacle” to enforcing arbitration agreements. (It was this rationale that the Supreme Court invoked to foil California’s attempt to ban class-action waivers in arbitration agreements.) AB 3080 would threaten to turn employers into criminals—and to subject them to discrimination lawsuits—merely for making arbitration a condition of employment. How could creating that in terrorem effect for businesses not be creating an obstacle to enforcement of arbitration agreements?

And why should a business be required to risk criminal sanctions or a lawsuit, or both, if it wants to insist that employees and independent contractors agree to a fair form of dispute resolution that is cheaper and quicker than formal litigation?

One might think that persons threatened by encroachments upon their federally protected rights would have the full-throated support of the entire legal community. But not so here, even though AB 3080 would create for California businesses the prospect of civil and criminal actions that would chill the exercise of a federally guaranteed freedom to contract. The constitutional demise of AB 3080—should it become law—is inevitable, once the matter reaches a court. But would the new law’s threats to contracting businesses so discourage arbitration agreements that the issue never gets there?

Perhaps it’s too soon to fret. Recall that Governor Brown, in 2015, vetoed a bill that would have made California the first state to ban arbitration agreements imposed as a condition of employment. He noted that employees in arbitrations enjoy “numerous protections” and that the Legislature’s “far-reaching approach” was one of the sort that courts had struck down in other jurisdictions. He also wanted to await the wisdom of arbitration cases then pending before the United States Supreme Court.

Events since 2015 have only confirmed the view that state laws discriminating against arbitration agreements are unconstitutional. It remains to be seen whether Governor Brown, if presented with a passed version of AB 3080, will use his veto again or will instead leave the defense of mandatory arbitration agreements in the hands of California businesses that are principled and hardy enough to risk civil and criminal sanctions while defending their federal right to contract.

Non-California employers with non-exempt workers who work in California will be interested in the following piece, originally posted on Seyfarth’s Wage Hour Litigation Blog.

Seyfarth Summary: On July 12, 2018, the California Supreme Court agreed to address questions posed by the Ninth Circuit about whether California Labor Code provisions apply to an out-of-state employer whose employees work part of their time in California. Nationwide employers with employees jetting in to work temporarily in California need to return their seats to an upright position and follow this developing story.

Is your business flying high in the current economy? Profits reaching new altitudes? Maybe you have employees residing in one state while working in another. If some work occasionally in California, prepare to fasten your seatbelts for a potentially rough landing. Even if your employees work in California only intermittently (think partial days), and even if your company is not headquartered in the Golden State, the California Supreme Court may soon bring you down to earth.

Background

Traditionally, employers in paying their employees have applied the wage and hour law of the state where the employee sides or most often works, even if the employee occasionally works in another state. In California, however, the rules are peculiar.

In a 2011 decision, Sullivan v. Oracle, the California Supreme Court held that non-California residents working in California for a California-based employer were subject to California daily overtime laws if they performed their in-state work for whole days. Oracle left employers up in the air as to whether California law would apply in other contexts, such as (a) when non-California residents work partial days of work in California, (b) when the employees worked for non-California based employers, or (c) when the wage and hour provisions at issue were something other than the cal-peculiar rules on daily overtime.

The Certified Questions

Which brings us to the current Ninth Circuit cases. Specifically, in three airline cases raising California issues in federal court (two cases against United Airlines, one against Delta),the Ninth Circuit requested the California Supreme Court to address five questions, paraphrased below:

(1) Does the federal Railway Labor Act exemption found in Wage Order 9 bar a wage-statement claim (Labor Code § 226) by an employee who is covered by a collective bargaining agreement?

(2) Does Section 226 apply to wage statements that an out-of-state employer provides to an employee who resides in California, who receives pay in California, and who pays California income tax on her wages, but who does not work principally in California?

(3) Does Section 226 and Labor Code § 204 (governing timely wage payments to current employees) apply to payments that an out-of-state employer makes to an employee who, in the relevant period, works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time?

(4) Does California minimum wage law apply to out-of-state employers for the California work that their employees perform in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time?

(5) Does California’s peculiar rule preventing pay-averaging for employees paid by commission or piece rate apply to a pay formula that generally awards credit for all hours on duty, but that does not always award pay credit for all hours on duty?

In the underlying lawsuits, United pilots and Delta flight attendants claim that the airlines violated California Labor Code provisions on wage statements, minimum wage, and the timing and completeness of wage payments. United (based in Chicago) and Delta (based in Atlanta) both won at the district court level, successfully arguing that de minimis work within California does not trigger California law, especially when (i) the employers are not based in California, (ii) the employees work only limited amounts of time in the state, and (iii) the employees mostly work in federal air space and in multiple jurisdictions during a single pay period or even a single day.

Why Does This Matter to Employers Based Outside California?

The guidance that the California Supreme Court will issue may ensnare non-California employers in a complex web of Labor Code laws for employees who work in California only sporadically, or who merely stop in California on their way to other work locations. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will stretch to apply California’s peculiar rules on wage statements, daily overtime, and minimum wage to such transitory California work. Or whether California rules on meal and rest beaks, or paid sick time, might also be implicated.

Based on recent emanations from our high court, we would not be surprised to see another extension of California’s employee-protective laws. Any such extension would be highly problematic in light of California’s robust civil and statutory penalties for Labor Code violations. The state’s Private Attorneys General Act authorizes penalty lawsuits brought on a representative basis on behalf of all “aggrieved employees or former employees.” While we do not predict that California will attempt to regulate employment of individuals who merely fly through California airspace, all employers with employees having feet on the ground in California need to sit up, return their tray tables to their original position, and be alert to these pending decisions.

Workplace Solution: The California Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the certified questions will not come down for many months. In the meanwhile, sit back, enjoy the flight, and watch this space for further developments. Feel free to contact your favorite Seyfarth attorney if you would like to discuss.

We are pleased to cross-post with our sister blog, Pay Equity Microblog, the following important and timely blog post regarding the latest in California pay equity legislation.

Seyfarth Synopsis: California Governor Brown signed into law yesterday Assembly Bill No. 2282 to clarify previously passed legislation that prohibits inquiries into an applicant’s salary history. Read on for a recap of Assembly Bill No. 2282.

When AB 168 was signed into law in October 2017, California prohibited employers from asking job applicants for “salary history information.” Under this legislation, California employers must provide “applicants” with the “pay scale” for a position upon “reasonable request.” The law was rather unclear, however, about what each of these three terms meant. On July 18, 2018, Governor Brown signed new legislation, Assembly Bill 2282, designed to clarify those terms and other items in AB 168.

For example, under AB 168, it was not clear whether the term “applicant” meant only external applicants for a position or also current employees applying for the position. AB 2282 clarifies that an “applicant” is an individual who seeks employment with the employer, not a current employee.

Next, it was not clear what information an employer would have to supply when a reasonable request was made for the “pay scale” of a position. AB 2282 defines “pay scale” as a salary or hourly wage range and clarifies that the definition of “pay scale” does not include bonuses or equity ranges.

AB 2282 also clarifies what constitutes a “reasonable request” for pay scale information. A “reasonable request” is defined as a request made after the applicant has completed the initial interview.

Additionally, AB 2282 clarifies that although AB 168 prohibits employers from asking for the applicant’s salary history information, employers may ask about an applicant’s salary expectations for the position.

The new legislation addresses aspects of the California Equal Pay Act as well. It was unclear under what circumstances an employer could use prior salary to justify a disparity in pay. The new legislation attempts to clarify this: “Prior salary shall not justify any disparity in compensation. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to mean that an employer may not make a compensation decision based on a current employee’s existing salary, so long as any wage differential resulting from that compensation decision is justified by one or more of the factors listed in this subdivision.” Those factors are (1) a seniority system, (2) a merit system, (3) a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; and (4) a bona fide factor other than race or ethnicity, such as education, training, or experience.

Our readers may be interested in the latest developments concerning California’s sanctuary state laws, and their impact on California employers. Read on for a recent posting on our sister blog: BIG Immigration Law Blog.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Legislature, Governor Jerry Brown, and Attorney General Xavier Becerra have aggressively asserted the state’s rights under the U.S. Constitution and traditional police powers to protect all state residents, including undocumented immigrants, from the comparably aggressive immigration enforcement actions of the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and Justice. This foreseeable clash of federal supremacy versus states’ rights resulted in a recent request by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in U.S. v. California for a preliminary injunction against three recent California statutes regulating and reporting on U.S.-California information sharing and the conditions in state detention facilities housing noncitizens (California Assembly Bill AB 103 and Senate Bill SB 54), and limiting the cooperation that California employers may provide to federal immigration enforcement agents (California assembly Bill AB 450). On July 4, 2018 Federal District Judge John A. Mendez issued an order refusing to enjoin AB 103 and SB 54, as well as certain employee-notice rights in AB 450, while granting a preliminary injunction on the rest of AB 450. Proceedings in U.S. v. California will continue as federal and California authorities continue to clash over other issues such as California’s Evidence-Code ban on disclosure of immigration status in state court proceedings (Senate Bill 785) and federal refusal to provide California with law enforcement grant funding because of its status as a “Sanctuary State.”

The familiar lines were drawn. Combatants clashed in a war of words, competing governance philosophies, conflicting laws, and judicial challenges – all in an age-old constitutional battle of federal power versus states’ rights.

This time around, however, the roles were reversed. Version 2018 is unlike the 1960s when extreme-right southern conservatives, claiming to champion states’ rights, defied but ultimately failed to stop federal efforts to protect civil rights. This time, the state of California passed three statutes under its police powers with the avowed purpose of promoting public safety and protecting undocumented state residents against a determined army of newly-unshackled federal immigration enforcement officers. And this time, the state mostly won.

By enacting three new California laws – Assembly Bills, AB 103 and AB 450, and Senate Bill (SB) 54 – state legislators responded to aggressive federal immigration enforcement activities in the Golden State that they viewed as serious threats to community policing, public safety, and the state’s sizzling, low-unemployment economy.

AB 103 – effective June 27, 2017 – added California Government Code § 12532, directing the state Attorney General to conduct a review and report on county, local, or private locked detention facilities housing noncitizens within the state for civil violations of federal immigration laws. The AG must review and issue a report to the California legislature, Governor and the public by March 1, 2019, and must address conditions of confinement at each facility, due process and care provided to detainees, and the circumstances leading to their apprehension and placement in the facility. To permit this review, AB 103 mandates that the AG be provided with access to each facility, detainees, officials, personnel, and records.

reverifying the employment eligibility of any current employee unless required by federal law.

IWPA also requires employers served with an I-9 NOI to give notice in writing within 72 hours to each current employee at the worksite and any authorized labor union that an I-9 inspection has begun, and notify any affected employee or authorized union rep – again within 72 hours of receiving any subsequent I-9 related federal notices – “of the obligations of the employer and the affected employee arising from the results of the inspection of I-9 . . . forms or other employment records” (the AB 450 Notice requirements).

Senate Bill (SB) 54 – enacted October 05, 2017, and popularly titled the “California Sanctuary State Law” – is a comprehensive statute which, among other things, prohibits California law enforcement authorities from sharing a wide variety of information on persons in state custody, including the release date of a detained noncitizen, and from transferring the individual to federal authorities unless he or she has been convicted of certain crimes or unless authorized by a judicial warrant or a judicial probable-cause determination.

Predictably, U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III threw down the gauntlet. The U.S. Justice Department filed a federal complaint in the Eastern District of California, requested a preliminary injunction, offered supporting declarations of senior officials in the State Department (Carl S. Risch) and DHS (Thomas D. Homan, Todd Hoffman and Rodney S. Scott). DOJ attorneys argued to Federal Judge John A. Mendez that these new California laws unconstitutionally usurp federal supremacy and sovereignty over control of the nation’s borders. Not shrinking from the fight, California AG Becerra filed a formal opposition to the request for preliminary injunction, a motion to dismiss the suit, and a legal brief.

No preliminary injunction would issue against AB 103, SB 54, and the AB 450 Notice requirements, because they do not trench upon federal authority over immigration.

As for rest of AB 450, California authorities are preliminarily enjoined from:

fining employers or otherwise enforcing the bans on reverifying the employment eligibility of current employees,

voluntarily giving immigration enforcement agents access to nonpublic areas of the worksite, or

allowing them to access, review, or obtain employee records.

Sounding a note of somber exasperation, Judge Mendez implored the two political branches to act:

This Court has gone to great lengths to explain the legal grounds for its opinion. This Order hopefully will not be viewed through a political lens and this Court expresses no views on the soundness of the policies or statutes involved in this lawsuit. There is no place for politics in our judicial system and this one opinion will neither define nor solve the complicated immigration issues currently facing our Nation.

As noted in the Introduction to this Order, this case is about the proper application of constitutional principles to a specific factual situation. The Court reached its decision only after a careful and considered application of legal precedent. The Court did so without concern for any possible political consequences. It is a luxury, of course, that members of the other two branches of government do not share. But if there is going to be a long-term solution to the problems our country faces with respect to immigration policy. it can only come from our legislative and executive branches. It cannot and will not come from piecemeal opinions issued by the judicial branch. Accordingly, this Court joins the ever-growing chorus of Federal Judges in urging our elected officials to set aside the partisan and polarizing politics dominating the current immigration debate and work in a cooperative and bi-partisan fashion toward drafting and passing legislation that addresses this critical political issue. Our Nation deserves it. Our Constitution demands it.

U.S. v. California, Judge Mendez’s case, will continue to final judgment and injunctive orders. Meantime, however, the federal/California square-off over immigration enforcement is only in the early rounds. California has just shot additional volleys.

The latest California law, SB 785 – enacted with immediate effect on May 17, 2018 – prohibits the disclosure of an individual’s immigration status in open court, unless the party seeking to introduce it first persuades a judge in a private, in camera hearing, that such evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible. SB 785 was enacted in response to recent ICE arrests of immigrants in California courthouses, despite the March 2017 admonition of California Chief Justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, AG Sessions and then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, reminding them that:

Our courthouses serve as a vital forum for ensuring access to justice and protecting public safety. Courthouses should not be used as bait in the necessary enforcement of our country’s immigration laws.

In State of California, ex rel, Xavier Becerra v. Jefferson B. Sessions, et al., the state filed a July 9, 2018 motion for summary judgment and legal brief, supported by 13 declarations, requesting a nationwide injunction against imposition of immigration enforcement conditions on federal grants for state and local law enforcement. In a contemporaneous press release, AG Becerra’s office asserted that:

[The U.S. Justice Department has] unlawfully withheld California’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant funds, which the State uses to support a task force that combats large-scale drug trafficking. California’s motion seeks to have the court enjoin the federal government’s unlawful conditions for all jurisdictions and compel the issuance of JAG funding to all eligible jurisdictions in the United States that have yet to receive it, as well as to restore COPS funding to California.

Seyfarth Synopsis: As recent triple-digit temps have shown, California is still one of the hottest places to be—literally. Today’s post reminds all employers, especially with employees who work outdoors or in open-air environments, that OSHA, Cal-OSHA, and the California Labor Code all prescribe protections from the heat.

California rest and recovery breaks.

California employers must provide non-exempt employees with a paid 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof. Refresh your recollection of the rest-break requirement here. And employers in certain industries should recall their additional obligations to help outdoor workers avoid heat-related illnesses by providing water, shade, and additional rest breaks, as required by California’s regulations.

The heat illness prevention regulations

Who is subject to heat illness prevention regulations? Anyone with outside workers, but the list of industries commonly affected includes:

Agriculture

Construction

Landscaping

Oil and gas extraction

Transportation or delivery

What does California require regarding outdoor places of employment? Employers must establish, implement, and maintain an effective heat illness prevention plan for outdoor workers. The Department of Industrial Relations offers detailed instructions and tips to help employers comply with state laws. Below are some main concerns:

Drinking Water. In addition to mandatory break periods, employees must have access to potable water that is “fresh, pure, suitably cool, and provided free of charge.”

Shade. If temperatures exceed 80° F, employers must maintain an area with shade at all times that is either open to the air or provides ventilation or cooling.

High-heat procedures. When temperatures exceed 95° F, employees in the industries specifically listed above must be given a minimum 10-minute cooldown period every two hours. These breaks may be concurrent with meal or other rest periods when the timing aligns properly.

What should I do if a worker suffers from heat-related illness? If a worker shows any signs of heat-related illness, a supervisor should be prepared to respond with first aid or other medical intervention—and should not permit a worker showing any symptoms of heat-related illness to resume working until the worker has sufficiently recovered from the symptoms.

Federal OSHA guidance

Federal laws and regulations, of course, also apply in California. The attached Management Alert contains some timely information about the four types of heat illness and what you can do to protect yourselves and your employees from this hazard.

Workplace Solution: Stay aware of the potential for heat illness in the workplace, and the steps needed to reduce the danger. Please feel free to reach out to your favorite Seyfarth lawyer if you have any questions, and as you continue to enjoy the summer.

About

Published by Seyfarth Shaw LLP, this blog is for in-house attorneys, HR professionals, business owners, and managers who face real issues on a daily basis and need practical solutions to address them. We aim to provide timely, topical information on the challenges that California employers face. Unlike blogs that simply provide legal updates, this blog will have a running series of Workplace Solutions that will address evolving areas of interest, including California leaves of absence, recruiting and hiring, trade secrets, and the use of social media.